User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 27

Coastline
I was admiring your recent mainpage appearance, and noticed this map. Do you know what the source is for that coastline? If that's a reliably sourced depiction of the coast at around that time that's a fascinating detail, and I think it should be reused elsewhere. I wasn't aware the coastline of the time could be identified so clearly, though, so I'm wondering where the data comes from. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
 * Forgive me for butting in here, but noticed this and the file history there is... interesting. The version uploaded and edited on 2 September 2008 by User:Wereon is here. This was followed by two edits made on 17 June 2012 and 8 July 2012 by User:Hel-hama. Those two versions are here and here (as you note, the coastline in the 8 July 2012 edit is much more detailed, and no source is provided for that). The source provided in the edit summary for the 17 June 2012 edit is this one. I think the map used was this one. But that doesn't have the extra coastal details. The logical place to ask would be User talk:Hel-hama. The changes there incidentally warrant Hel-Hama being cited as the main author of that work, so I'm going to raise that with them over on Commons. Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea ... I generally don't question that sort of change, we could always go back to the earlier map, if needed. The actual locations and such on the map were what I bothered with ... they were roughly correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have some idea of where such coastal data might have come from, but I've just noticed Hel-hama is not a frequent contributor at Commons, so I might be waiting a long time for a reply there. If anything does come up, I'll let you and Mike know (they may also pop up here and say something). Carcharoth (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope the source is more recent than that 1923 map; without more recent commentary I'd be hesitant to use a coastline so very different from that of today. Particularly around Lincolnshire that's a huge change.  Carcharoth, if you find out more, would you let me know at my talk page?  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The information requested has been supplied here. I am about to let Mike know on his talk page, but I thought the information might be of interest to you as well, Ealdgyth. Carcharoth (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry IV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Milhist coord?
Hey Ealdgyth, we've had a request for more coords to cover diverse periods and regions. I see you want to do more article stuff and less "other stuff"... being a coord might help you focus some attention on Middle-Ages articles. Interested? - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Err.. wouldn't I have to be a member to run? And what all is involved? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it; you'll love the uniform. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All the members have to salute you and call you "ma'am". :) More seriously, we could do with more members with your sort of credentials in medieval studies. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The powah is underwhelming. Mainly, it involves occasionally closing an A-class review, saying "me too" when we give someone an award, and minimal reviewing, at your choice of PR, A-class, GAN or FAC. And saying wise things every now and then on our main talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. That was meant slightly tongue-in-cheek ... probably the best place to find out what coords have done is in the nomination statements. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Happy Appies
Movement afoot to get Appaloosa as TFA, feel free to weigh in and support! Montanabw (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Interest
I Would you be interested in helping me in a book series, or a document WikiProject, if any one already knows a project, help me into editing and allowing a project where maybe confirmed users can allow edits of famous lost notes, ballads, and constitutions, to keep them locked, and used for further notes, I know they maybe compact usually on the internet over years, however, for Wikipedia, it's already there on the main page on every major web browser, this site can keep documents such as Magna Carta, Hammurabi, Le Prophecies of Nostradamus, Ozymandias, and condense the verses better then most websites, and keep different chapters, otherwise, I am hoping under WP:Notability and other policies the document articles for creation noticeboard would offer it if possible. Thanks and please comment on my page if you wish--GoShow (...............) 00:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. You wouldn't happen to live near Vandalia, Sangamon or Greenville County do you?

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Germanus of Winchester
Ahoy! Left a review of this, as usual, great article. Ironholds (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thought this might interest you
Since it is in your areas of interest, this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, someone dropped a link to it on Anselm's page. Personally, I have never liked Anselm and I keep hoping someone else will improve his article - I'm not a philosopher and writing about philosophy would be like you writing about ... fungus or something. NOte though that no one is writing about the articles we do right - its always the "bad" articles - but in fairness - Anselm's going to be very very hard to write about. Historians are pretty polarized about him - and that means that folks who disagree with trying to show both sides will be upset. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've often thought much the same thing; it's surely no surprise to anyone that there are crap articles on Wikipedia, just as there are crap articles everywhere. But there are also some very good ones, sometimes the best you'll find anywhere. Heck, even ODNB articles contain errors. One thing I do wish though is that all GAs and FAs were automatically semi-protected. I'd love to see a statistic revealing how many of Wikipedia's readers encounter a vandalised GA/FA before it's been fixed by that despised and loathed group of editors villified as "owners". Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Malleus. I've loaded vandalized pages, it can be startling.  We have to pull back from the idea that anyone should be able to edit any article, anytime.  If you want to edit a GA/FA, take the trouble to become autoconfirmed.  Maybe by then you'll think better of it ... and I have nothing against fungus, but I don't want to write about them because I lack the background knowledge and am generally uninterested.  And yeah, it would be nice for the outside world to recognize that we can do things write, not argue about the mass of stuff we lack the time and inclination to improve.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear! As someone constantly vilified for "ownership" when I revert crap and tell someone that there edit was "problematic", then have to survive the ensuing shitstorm, yes, Malleus is right!    Montanabw (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyhow, Ealdgyth, I'm planning to do Bryan either late this year or early next year, depending on time constraints. If you see me reviewing your work now and then between, er, now and then, it's probably me buttering you up. :)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I should be back to more normal editing for me by November at the latest... this "promotion" I got in my consulting work is really kicking my ass. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as they give you that green stuff that goes with everything!  Montanabw (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Mongols are coming

 * and a ride, enjoy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter


We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. currently leads, followed by, and. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012
Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks
hi victoria, thanks for this. that was a mess and i was dreading the revision. ... aa:talk 23:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Horse pics
Hi E! Do you have access to the Arabian stud book other than via dataource? Basically, I want to include a photo of *Abu Zeyd in the William Robinson Brown article, and possibly also in the one on Homer Davenport, but I'd love to use it as PD, not Fair Use. User:Churn and Change has been helping me (nice user, good egg) and found something indicating a photo was published in the AHRA stud book prior to 1923, but we can't find a pinpoint cite to prove it. Given the foaling date of the horse and when Brown owned him, it's pretty likely his photo was published elsewhere too, and prior to 1923. Can you offer any help on this from your resources? Montanabw (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have volumes 5-20ish ... 5 is a reprint of the earlier ones but was published in 1944. I just looked quickly, and didn't find anything that would help. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Abu Zeyd would have been registered before that... I guess I could write the Registry...? Any other ideas? There are two common photos of him, and they're all over the web, but unless we can find something like "Abu Zeyd,photographed [pre-1923] and published in [document, pre-1923] I'm not sure how to handle this.  Montanabw (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Didn't AZ go to the remount program? There might be photos of him if he did... that are goverment photos... check with Fort Robinson if that's the case... I'll poke a bit more around here. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know; my sources are real vague about Brown's background with the remount, other than his great support of it -- I don't have a copy of his book (oughta get one...). He definitely provided stallions to the remount, but not sure if sale, lease, donation, loan... anything you can find (and add to the article!) would be great and much appreciated.  He's a really interesting fellow.  Compare his formal portrait & the one of him at the logging camp to the one of him on the horse; pretty clear which he preferred to be doing.  Kind of a sad story, actually.  Montanabw (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

RS question
Hi again, I would dearly love to use this article,, to pep up both the Homer Davenport and the W.R. Brown articles, but it's stored at a geocities web site, though it is clearly a reprint from the Arabian Horse World. How to handle? Montanabw (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Find the original, that's your best choice. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but my mom threw out all my old copies of AHW years ago... Got another idea?  (grin)   Montanabw (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ILL - see if Dana can score it from her local university library. Write to AHW itself and ask for a copy? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For 20 or 30 bucks, I'm sure... LOL! Montanabw (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Featuring "old" FAs on Main Page
Hi old friend. I wondered if you'd spotted the fuss I made on WT:FAR and the developing audit I'm doing as a result at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page‎. Any opinions? Any time to do a couple of quick reviews? --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Why...
...did you remove this from Augustine of Canterbury? It's well referenced and was there for a long time before I inserted the original Gregory's epistle to Eulogius. Thanks in advance for your attention. José Luiz talk 13:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Replying on the talk page...Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The featured article award goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

TFAR
(waves) you were recommended, please see Parrot of Doom TFAR, the blurb is here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * and now another bishop is scheduled for 9 Nov but please see here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

WRB
E, I'm prepping William Robinson Brown for FA and would greatly value your input. Another editor is helping me out, and we are tripping over the question of what stuff to source only in footnotes, and what should be full site in a sources section with a short ref in footnotes. Dumb thing to be tripping over, but as I usually have ducked all editing disputes over refs (I just find 'em) I'm finding that I really am not sure what to do. Any help or comments would be much appreciated. Montanabw (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Benedictines
Can you explain your edit summary on Augustine of Canterbury which says "redundant - there are no non-Catholic Benedictines"? I am wondering a) whether you mean Catholic in a wider sense or specifically Roman Catholic (since there demonstrably are Benedictines who are not in communion with Rome), and b) whether you mean now or in Augustine's time. Marnanel (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it applies to Augustine's time - everyone was pretty much Catholic at that point in time, even the Orthodox. It's really redunant there and uneeded, thus my removal. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

William the Conqueror's date of birth?
Being of Norman descent, I have always been interested to know the date of birth of key Norman figures in history such as Cavalier de LaSalle. I have seen this October 14, 1028 date 4 or 5 times in astrology books and references. If none contradict each other, where did they get this date? How could they be all wrong?--Iberville (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The dates in the article come from scholars who study Norman history - David Bates, David C. Douglas, etc. They are medieval historians specializing in the time period. Certainly much better sources than astrology sources. (Really, astrology???). They could be wrong because .. maybe they are astrology sources and not real historians? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response! In the mean time, I communicated with I guy that lives in Caen, Normandy. He tells me that the October 14, 1028 is a legendary date that people refer too. My next question is thus, are legendary facts reliable ones? When speaking about North American Indians, most of it prior to the advent of the Europeans is legendary.--Iberville (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that we have contemporary records of William's life, no, we don't consider legendary accounts of some birthdate to be reliable. Wikipedia uses secondary sources, preferably scholarly ones. Those would be the biographies of William by Douglas and Bates - both of which are extensively used in the article. Both biographies give no space to the 14 October date - so we don't cover them in the article on Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I have found the reason for this date. After seeing dozens of genealogy and astrological websites on the birthday of William, I saw that the date given of October 14th was the same as the Battle of Hastings on October 14, 1066. Chances that the battle took place on his birthday are slim. Could be that with time, this October 14th date has been given for his real birthday.--Iberville (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom guide
Regarding your ArbCom guide...you say that I don't claim any GAs or FAs on my user page. The three GAs, one DYK, and few ITNs I have are claimed in the top icons in the top right corner of my user page. Thanks, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 00:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources for genealogy
Ealdgyth, would you mind casting your sourcing eye over a couple of articles that are at AfD? Agricolae left me a note because I started Anglian collection; the articles in question are related to the Anglian mss. The AfDs are Articles for deletion/Ancestry of the kings of Britain and Articles for deletion/Genealogia Lindisfarorum. There's a related merge discussion at Talk:Anglian collection. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You only gave me a link to one AfD - you linked it twice... which was the other one? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * D'oh. Fixed above; sorry! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Content study
Did you see this? Rather oddly, the two articles chosen to represent the whole of the Humanities were Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Acquinas. Fortunate it included one largely by you anyway. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * heh. Did Peter Damian have a hand in the selection? I actually haven't had much to do with Anselm's article - I really really really dislike the whole field of "Anselm-studies" and have only done the minimum on Anselm. Plus I really don't like philosophy either ... so... Interesting study - I'd have thought they'd have chosen a few more articles in each field though... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the bishop-loving mafia obviously! What do you expect from Oxford. Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think something in the water in Oxford makes all them philosophy-mad or something like that... If I was a medieval archbishop, I'd have been Hubert Walter or Stigand rather than Anselm or Thomas Becket. I'm a bit too practical to go tilting at windmills. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR
Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swalling@undefinedwikimedia.org) with...


 * the subject line "JSTOR"
 * your English Wikipedia username
 * your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   20:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sent the email, and thank you for your efforts on this! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Responses
You know, there are days where I just can't wwin : )

Some say my writing is tl; dr.

And others say that it's too short and not explanatory enough (I think one guide even said both! : )

Soooo, with that in mind, let me ask: What would you like to know? - jc37 18:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * lets move this over to User talk:Ealdgyth/2012 Arb Election votes - which is more germane. And bear with me, it's the great turkey slaughter here in the states - I'm currently trying to keep from screaming at my favorite football team. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've responded there. - jc37 19:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Any bishops in the pipeline?
So much has changed in this place, mainly not for the better, that I find myself looking for any traces of the old certainties. It's months since we had a bishop at FAC; are there to be any more? I sincerely hope the answer is yes. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: Even a horse would do. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably this fall/winter, I'm hoping. Life's been pretty wild and crazy here and will be for another month or two at least. I signed up for the Wikicup again next year, which should motivate me some for editing. It's just been ... insane here, and projects are still piled up high on my desk. Wikipedia has to take a back seat to RL worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll also admit that the fracas at FAC this spring didn't give me warm and fuzzies ... and just when I was starting to feel things had calmed down, it started up a couple of days ago. Talk about discouraging....Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what's discouraging, seeing Arbcom rush to endorse an indefinite ban proposal because I moved a thread from the talk page of an RfA back to the main page. Fuck 'em all I say. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bishop to come, good news or bad, I don't know ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Theobald of Bec
This is a note to let the main editors of Theobald of Bec know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 2, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 2, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Theobald (c. 1090 – 1161) was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1139 to 1161. He became a monk at the Abbey of Bec in Normandy some time in the late 11th or early 12th century, becoming abbot in 1137. King Stephen of England chose him to be Archbishop of Canterbury in 1138. During Theobald's term of office, Canterbury's claim to primacy over the Welsh ecclesiastics was resolved by Pope Eugene III in Canterbury's favour. Theobald faced challenges to his authority from a subordinate bishop, Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester, and his relationship with King Stephen was turbulent. On one occasion Stephen forbade him to attend a papal council, but Theobald defied the king, which resulted in the confiscation of his property and temporary exile. Serving during the disorders of Stephen's reign, Theobald succeeded in forcing peace on the king by refusing to consecrate Stephen's son and heir, Eustace. After Eustace's death in 1153 Stephen recognised his rival Henry of Anjou as his heir, and later Theobald was named regent of the kingdom after Stephen's death. After a long illness, Theobald died in 1161, following which unsuccessful efforts were made to have him canonised as a saint. (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Joys. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At least you got four days' notice this time instead of 4 hours...  Montanabw (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

FAC for Casting Crowns
First off, thanks for commenting - I was worried it was going to fail due to lack of discussion. I've addressed the concerns you have raised so whenever you have time you can reply to them; I'll work on replacing the About.com sources in the meantime. Thanks again. :) Toa   Nidhiki05  01:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ununseptium
Found a replacement for the other source you mentioned. Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Middle Ages as part of the Postclassical Era
Why did you erase this paragraph? If you believe this information is better addressed in a different part of the article, please suggest how. However, your justification "unrelated to this article - which is specifically on the European period" does not seem to hold water at all. European history is a part of world history, just as, say, French history is a part of European history. Noting that the European Middle Ages are a part of larger trends in the Old World in the article about European Middle Ages is not just related information, but IMO absolutely required.

I'm sure there is an appropriate way that we can agree upon to include this information. Please advise. – MirancheT C 19:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Moving this to the article talk, which is where it belongs. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)